Bibliographic record
Abstract
D URING THE 1990S A TREND DEVELOPED in research on Daphnis and Chloe, with the novel's central focus on the nature of sexuality receiving renewed examination.1 One aspect of the text that has yet to receive full attention in this regard, however, is the careful manner in which it marks human sexuality through a series of parallels as well as oppositions among human, animal, and divine. How, for example, are we to view the reflections and refractions of both the animal and the divine in Daphnis? In general, as Segal (1974: 291) has succinctly put it, civilization rests on a double opposition: man versus beast and man versus and, to be sure, the Greek world-view frequently draws upon a series of such antitheses.2 Nonetheless, Daphnis and Chloe works with these oppositions between human and animal on the one hand and human and divine on the other in a thoroughgoing, but rather unusual, way: the interplay of human, animal, and divine is rendered more complex because the text not only establishes oppositions between these spheres, but breaks down boundaries in such a way that mutual interpenetration occurs and all three come to resemble one another, especially in their similar reactions to Eros (see Philetas' account of the god's influence at 2.7). In this essay, I concern myself particularly with how the text situates Daphnis vis-a-vis both his goats and Pan, the goat-footed god, and the role these figures play in educating Daphnis about male sexuality as both positive and negative exempla: what precisely will Daphnis learn from an environment that contains the potential for both pastoral harmony and bestial aggression? First of all, we should note that Daphnis, perhaps as much as any character in Greek literature, is portrayed as virtually belonging to the animal realm himself.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".